Goonewardena v. City of New York

Background

Prasanna Goonewardena sought leave under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 to file a Third Amended Complaint. He alleged that the defendants conspired to harass and discriminate against him because of his race and national origin while he was employed by the New York City Department of Social Services as a fraud investigator. His allegations included false workplace disciplinary charges, a hostile work environment, retaliation for workplace complaints, and a conspiracy to terminate his employment.

The proposed Third Amended Complaint added further allegations supporting federal race-discrimination and state-law defamation claims, allegations about conduct occurring after the Second Amended Complaint was filed, aiding-and-abetting claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law, and Jill Berry as a defendant again. The defendants who had appeared opposed amendment, arguing that the proposed additions would be futile. Their opposition addressed only the new claims and allegations. The opinion does not decide the ultimate merits of any claim.

Goonewardena also sought more time to serve defendants who had not been served. He was litigating without a lawyer and was not proceeding under the court-funded service process that would have involved the United States Marshals Service. He also reported taking leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act to care for his ill father.

Court’s Analysis

Rule 15 generally directs courts to freely allow amendment when justice requires, absent undue delay, bad faith, undue prejudice, or futility. The court found that the proposed allegations and claims were closely connected to the claims and allegations already in the Second Amended Complaint. Allowing them to proceed together would avoid piecemeal litigation and allow the claims to be addressed in one motion.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) generally requires service within 90 days, but requires an extension when a plaintiff shows good cause for the failure. The court exercised its discretion to extend the service deadline, relying both on Goonewardena’s self-represented status and on his need to take leave to care for his ill father.

Order

Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky granted Goonewardena’s motion to amend the Second Amended Complaint and made the proposed Third Amended Complaint the operative complaint. The grant was expressly without prejudice to the defendants’ right to file a motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint.

The court also granted, effective as of the earlier deadline, Goonewardena’s request for an extension of time to serve the remaining defendants until July 3, 2025. The court directed him to serve those defendants with newly issued summonses and the Third Amended Complaint and to file proof of service for all defendants by that date. The court set additional deadlines for responses, opposition and reply papers concerning any motion to dismiss, and possible requests to stay discovery.